Would you download a felony?

This is a discussion on Would you download a felony? within the General Discussions forums, part of the Community Boards category; unauthorized streaming of copyrighted content is a significant problem that will only increase in severity if technology outpaces legal reforms
...

Hmm... probably I would, yeah. Often I don't even know the streaming was somehow illegal.
... although I probably shouldn't say that in congress, or they'll get ideas...

Anyway, I hit the link, then clicked on the "hearing" link that provides a podcast of the session. I'm 8 minutes into it and there's still no order of business, lots of background talk, some female saying she took charles somewhere and will talk all about the tornado later, some other saying she met michael,... fascinating stuff.

One question though. How's this much different from current laws concerning traditional media (TV and Radio)? Aren't they just trying to extend these laws into the internet?

... oh, look. They are starting at the eleventh minute. Yawn.

EDIT: Yup... the chairman introduction confirms my suspicion. Can't say I see a problem with this...

Oh good heavens, if I'd have known someone would watch the video I wouldn't have posted the link. For everyone who hasn't watched it yet, you can get transcripts instead. Please, if you bother at all, read the transcripts instead.

Anyway, you need to look at the riders. As you know, or should know, I assume you know, copyright infringement isn't intended to be just a "You violated our copyright; pay us now!" kind of thing. A court, conventionally a jury, must decide that there has been infringement. This law and its riders are attempting to circumvent this by changing how copyright infringement cases are processed because of the felony charge. Further, in the context of this law, they are attempting to enlarge certain bits like the "willful infringement" context.

It isn't then just a simple update to the broadcast, production, and public performance related laws that already exist. Those laws do need to be updated in the context of the modern world, but they need to be done so in such a way as to conform to the relevant treaties, such as WIPO, without this overreaching attempt to criminalize by default.

It is sickening. It is like the burdensome intellectual property laws in a way. The average guy who misconfiguration a port and streams his entire movie collection for the world to see has a huge burden of proving that it was accidental and even if is proven the guy would have already been accused of a felony. (Just being accused of a felony carries a lot of baggage in this part of the world.) Civil defense is a huge burden when attempting to raise a defense against copyright protection because of the current state of laws; attempting to raise a criminal defense would be an entirely different level of abuse.

[Edit]
In order to provide context for the above, consider how difficult it is to even get the "USPTO" to consider reexamining a patent application for the sake or reduction as part of a defense. It is crazy. It is an unacceptable burden to place on the average citizen of anywhere.
[/Edit]

[Edit]
And not that it really matters, but no I don't condone copyright infringement or patent infringement.

I do however despise any law that places an unreasonable burden on defensive measures.
[/Edit]

Will have to find that transcript. Should be an interesting reading. I didn't go past the introduction to be honest. But should have guessed there would be a lot of free-riding and by the time they were over, there would be some project of a law that would have nothing to do with what was initially promoted.

Oh good heavens, if I'd have known someone would watch the video I wouldn't have posted the link. For everyone who hasn't watched it yet, you can get transcripts instead. Please, if you bother at all, read the transcripts instead.

Anyway, you need to look at the riders. As you know, or should know, I assume you know, copyright infringement isn't intended to be just a "You violated our copyright; pay us now!" kind of thing. A court, conventionally a jury, must decide that there has been infringement. This law and its riders are attempting to circumvent this by changing how copyright infringement cases are processed because of the felony charge. Further, in the context of this law, they are attempting to enlarge certain bits like the "willful infringement" context.

It isn't then just a simple update to the broadcast, production, and public performance related laws that already exist. Those laws do need to be updated in the context of the modern world, but they need to be done so in such a way as to conform to the relevant treaties, such as WIPO, without this overreaching attempt to criminalize by default.

It is sickening. It is like the burdensome intellectual property laws in a way. The average guy who misconfiguration a port and streams his entire movie collection for the world to see has a huge burden of proving that it was accidental and even if is proven the guy would have already been accused of a felony. (Just being accused of a felony carries a lot of baggage in this part of the world.) Civil defense is a huge burden when attempting to raise a defense against copyright protection because of the current state of laws; attempting to raise a criminal defense would be an entirely different level of abuse.

[Edit]
In order to provide context for the above, consider how difficult it is to even get the "USPTO" to consider reexamining a patent application for the sake or reduction as part of a defense. It is crazy. It is an unacceptable burden to place on the average citizen of anywhere.
[/Edit]

[Edit]
And not that it really matters, but no I don't condone copyright infringement or patent infringement.

I do however despise any law that places an unreasonable burden on defensive measures.
[/Edit]